Vijay Khanderao Kulkarni v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

{1} 903 review.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 30797 OF 2014 IN WP/411/2012 VIJAY KHANDERAO KULKARNI

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ...

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Ravibhushan P. Adgaonkar. AGP for Respondents : Mr. G.K. Thigale.

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA & A.M. BADAR, JJ.

DATE : 14TH JANUARY, 2015.

PER COURT:

1] Heard Mr. Adgaonkar, learned counsel for the applicant. Review is sought on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The person, who had issued the letter dated 24.5.2010 had no authority to issue the same and the respondent State was directed to take instructions and verify about the instances given by the present applicant, wherein, the cases of those persons who were similarly situated were considered.

2] We have heard the learned AGP also.

3] The scope of review is in a narrow compass. Same cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise. This court while considering the writ petition was dealing with the judgment delivered by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and the pleadings of the parties. In fact, there were no pleadings in respect of the instances which were sought to be given. This court, as such, considered the pleadings and the judgment of the Tribunal and delivered the judgment.

{2} 903 review.odt 4] There does not appear to be an error apparent on the face of the record. The review application, as such, is disposed of. No costs. [A.M. BADAR] [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE JUDGE.

grt/-